Background Sleep impairment, fatigue, and anxiety are common conditions in cancer survivors. Small studies suggest mindfulness- based interventions may be helpful for cancer-related fatigue.

Objective To evaluate mindfulness-based cancer recovery (MBCR) for cancer survivors who are recovering from chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

Methods 42 cancer survivors who were within 6 months of completion of chemotherapy or radiation were randomized 2:1 to 8 weekly MBCR classes (n = 28) or wait-list control (n = 14). The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Functional Assessment in Cancer Therapy – Fatigue (FACT-F), and 20-item State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) were used to assess sleep, fatigue, and anxiety at baseline (time of enrollment), at 2 months (on completion of the MBCR course), and 4 months (2 months after completion of the course). 32 of 42 participants participated in an optional blood draw to assess immune function.

Results 79% of the MBCR group attended at least 7 of the 9 MBCR sessions. At the 2-month assessment, sleep quality (PSQI, range 0-21, >5 = poorer sleep quality) in the MBCR group improved from the baseline 8.9 to 6.4, compared with the wait-list group (baseline 7.2 to 7.6); and at 4 months after course completion, it was 6.1 compared with 7.8, respectively (P = .03). There was a non-statistically significant improvement in fatigue (FACIT-F, P = .19). There was a trend toward improvement in the anxiety scores (STAI, range 20-80, higher score = greater anxiety) in the MBCR group compared with the wait-list group at 2 months (31.8 vs 39.4, respectively; P = .07) and 4 months (32.8 vs 40.7; P = .10). Immune function measures were not statistically significant.

Limitations It is possible the psychological support of being in contact with a facilitator and/or other cancer survivors had a beneficial effect in the outcomes of those in the MBCR group.

Conclusion MBCR has a high compliance rate and results in sustained improvements in sleep quality, fatigue, and anxiety. MBCR may be useful for cancer survivors struggling with sleep, fatigue, and anxiety.

Funding Hourglass Fund, Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota; University of Minnesota Foundation (immune function protocol); National Institutes of Health Office of Women’s Health Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health (BIRCWH) NIH # K12-HD055887.

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

Background Sleep impairment, fatigue, and anxiety are common conditions in cancer survivors. Small studies suggest mindfulness- based interventions may be helpful for cancer-related fatigue.

Objective To evaluate mindfulness-based cancer recovery (MBCR) for cancer survivors who are recovering from chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

Methods 42 cancer survivors who were within 6 months of completion of chemotherapy or radiation were randomized 2:1 to 8 weekly MBCR classes (n = 28) or wait-list control (n = 14). The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Functional Assessment in Cancer Therapy – Fatigue (FACT-F), and 20-item State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) were used to assess sleep, fatigue, and anxiety at baseline (time of enrollment), at 2 months (on completion of the MBCR course), and 4 months (2 months after completion of the course). 32 of 42 participants participated in an optional blood draw to assess immune function.

Results 79% of the MBCR group attended at least 7 of the 9 MBCR sessions. At the 2-month assessment, sleep quality (PSQI, range 0-21, >5 = poorer sleep quality) in the MBCR group improved from the baseline 8.9 to 6.4, compared with the wait-list group (baseline 7.2 to 7.6); and at 4 months after course completion, it was 6.1 compared with 7.8, respectively (P = .03). There was a non-statistically significant improvement in fatigue (FACIT-F, P = .19). There was a trend toward improvement in the anxiety scores (STAI, range 20-80, higher score = greater anxiety) in the MBCR group compared with the wait-list group at 2 months (31.8 vs 39.4, respectively; P = .07) and 4 months (32.8 vs 40.7; P = .10). Immune function measures were not statistically significant.

Limitations It is possible the psychological support of being in contact with a facilitator and/or other cancer survivors had a beneficial effect in the outcomes of those in the MBCR group.

Conclusion MBCR has a high compliance rate and results in sustained improvements in sleep quality, fatigue, and anxiety. MBCR may be useful for cancer survivors struggling with sleep, fatigue, and anxiety.

Funding Hourglass Fund, Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota; University of Minnesota Foundation (immune function protocol); National Institutes of Health Office of Women’s Health Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health (BIRCWH) NIH # K12-HD055887.

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

Background Sleep impairment, fatigue, and anxiety are common conditions in cancer survivors. Small studies suggest mindfulness- based interventions may be helpful for cancer-related fatigue.

Objective To evaluate mindfulness-based cancer recovery (MBCR) for cancer survivors who are recovering from chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

Methods 42 cancer survivors who were within 6 months of completion of chemotherapy or radiation were randomized 2:1 to 8 weekly MBCR classes (n = 28) or wait-list control (n = 14). The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Functional Assessment in Cancer Therapy – Fatigue (FACT-F), and 20-item State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) were used to assess sleep, fatigue, and anxiety at baseline (time of enrollment), at 2 months (on completion of the MBCR course), and 4 months (2 months after completion of the course). 32 of 42 participants participated in an optional blood draw to assess immune function.

Results 79% of the MBCR group attended at least 7 of the 9 MBCR sessions. At the 2-month assessment, sleep quality (PSQI, range 0-21, >5 = poorer sleep quality) in the MBCR group improved from the baseline 8.9 to 6.4, compared with the wait-list group (baseline 7.2 to 7.6); and at 4 months after course completion, it was 6.1 compared with 7.8, respectively (P = .03). There was a non-statistically significant improvement in fatigue (FACIT-F, P = .19). There was a trend toward improvement in the anxiety scores (STAI, range 20-80, higher score = greater anxiety) in the MBCR group compared with the wait-list group at 2 months (31.8 vs 39.4, respectively; P = .07) and 4 months (32.8 vs 40.7; P = .10). Immune function measures were not statistically significant.

Limitations It is possible the psychological support of being in contact with a facilitator and/or other cancer survivors had a beneficial effect in the outcomes of those in the MBCR group.

Conclusion MBCR has a high compliance rate and results in sustained improvements in sleep quality, fatigue, and anxiety. MBCR may be useful for cancer survivors struggling with sleep, fatigue, and anxiety.

Funding Hourglass Fund, Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota; University of Minnesota Foundation (immune function protocol); National Institutes of Health Office of Women’s Health Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health (BIRCWH) NIH # K12-HD055887.

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

A new classification tool helped guide the treatment of bacteremic patients while clinicians awaited antibiotic resistance results, investigators reported.

The clinical decision tree had a positive predictive value of 91% and a negative predictive value of 92% for determining whether certain gram-negative infections produced extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL), Catherine Goodman, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and her associates wrote online in Clinical Infectious Diseases. “These predictions may assist empiric treatment decisions in order to optimize clinical outcomes while reducing administration of overly broad antibiotic agents that can select for further resistance emergence,” they added.

Bacteria that produce ESBL can hydrolyze all broad-spectrum beta-lactam antibiotics except carbapenems. Rapid tests for beta-lactamase genes can shorten the lag time between gram-stain identification and antimicrobial resistance results, but are cost prohibitive for most clinical laboratories and often do not assess ESBL gene groups, the researchers said. To find a way to predict which infections are characterized by ESBL production, they studied adults hospitalized at Johns Hopkins from October 2008 to March 2015 with bloodstream isolates of Klebsiella pneumoniae (40% of patients), Klebsiella oxytoca (4% of patients), and Escherichia coli (56% of patients). Most bacteremias began as urinary tract infections (34% of cases), followed by intra-abdominal infections (24%), catheter-related infections (16%), and biliary infections (14%) (Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Jul 26. doi:10.1093/cid/ciw425).

A total of 194 patients (15%) had bacteremias that produced ESBL, according to the investigators. Using a technique called binary recursive partitioning, they compared these patients with ESBL-negative patients to create a clinical decision tree based on five yes-or-no questions. The tree first asked if the patient had been colonized or infected with ESBL-producing bacteria within 6 months, and if so, whether the patient currently had an indwelling catheter. Patients meeting both criteria had a 92% chance of being ESBL positive. Patients with a recent history of ESBL but no catheter had an 81% chance of being ESBL positive if they were at least 43 years old, but a 75% chance of being ESBL negative if they were under age 43 years.

Among patients with no recent history of ESBL, the decision tree asked about hospitalization in a country with a high ESBL burden and antibiotic therapy during the past 6 months. Patients responding “yes” to both questions had a 100% chance of being ESBL positive. Patients with only the geographic risk factor had a 63% chance of being ESBL negative, and patients with neither risk factor had a 93% chance of being ESBL negative.

The decision tree detected only half of ESBL cases because there was a subgroup with no recent ESBL history or geographic exposure, the investigators noted. “The poor predictive nature of health care–associated variables within this patient subset may suggest a high proportion of community-acquired ESBL infections. Indeed, although risk factors for ESBLs have traditionally focused on the health care setting, increasing reports describe the community as an important ESBL reservoir,” they added. Nonetheless, of 194 patients with ESBL bacteremia, 35% received empiric carbapenem treatment within 6 hours after identification of the bacterial genus and species, the investigators emphasized. “Utilization of the decision tree would have increased ESBL case detection during the empiric treatment window by approximately 50%.”

The National Institutes of Health funded the study. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

A new classification tool helped guide the treatment of bacteremic patients while clinicians awaited antibiotic resistance results, investigators reported.

The clinical decision tree had a positive predictive value of 91% and a negative predictive value of 92% for determining whether certain gram-negative infections produced extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL), Catherine Goodman, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and her associates wrote online in Clinical Infectious Diseases. “These predictions may assist empiric treatment decisions in order to optimize clinical outcomes while reducing administration of overly broad antibiotic agents that can select for further resistance emergence,” they added.

Bacteria that produce ESBL can hydrolyze all broad-spectrum beta-lactam antibiotics except carbapenems. Rapid tests for beta-lactamase genes can shorten the lag time between gram-stain identification and antimicrobial resistance results, but are cost prohibitive for most clinical laboratories and often do not assess ESBL gene groups, the researchers said. To find a way to predict which infections are characterized by ESBL production, they studied adults hospitalized at Johns Hopkins from October 2008 to March 2015 with bloodstream isolates of Klebsiella pneumoniae (40% of patients), Klebsiella oxytoca (4% of patients), and Escherichia coli (56% of patients). Most bacteremias began as urinary tract infections (34% of cases), followed by intra-abdominal infections (24%), catheter-related infections (16%), and biliary infections (14%) (Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Jul 26. doi:10.1093/cid/ciw425).

A total of 194 patients (15%) had bacteremias that produced ESBL, according to the investigators. Using a technique called binary recursive partitioning, they compared these patients with ESBL-negative patients to create a clinical decision tree based on five yes-or-no questions. The tree first asked if the patient had been colonized or infected with ESBL-producing bacteria within 6 months, and if so, whether the patient currently had an indwelling catheter. Patients meeting both criteria had a 92% chance of being ESBL positive. Patients with a recent history of ESBL but no catheter had an 81% chance of being ESBL positive if they were at least 43 years old, but a 75% chance of being ESBL negative if they were under age 43 years.

Among patients with no recent history of ESBL, the decision tree asked about hospitalization in a country with a high ESBL burden and antibiotic therapy during the past 6 months. Patients responding “yes” to both questions had a 100% chance of being ESBL positive. Patients with only the geographic risk factor had a 63% chance of being ESBL negative, and patients with neither risk factor had a 93% chance of being ESBL negative.

The decision tree detected only half of ESBL cases because there was a subgroup with no recent ESBL history or geographic exposure, the investigators noted. “The poor predictive nature of health care–associated variables within this patient subset may suggest a high proportion of community-acquired ESBL infections. Indeed, although risk factors for ESBLs have traditionally focused on the health care setting, increasing reports describe the community as an important ESBL reservoir,” they added. Nonetheless, of 194 patients with ESBL bacteremia, 35% received empiric carbapenem treatment within 6 hours after identification of the bacterial genus and species, the investigators emphasized. “Utilization of the decision tree would have increased ESBL case detection during the empiric treatment window by approximately 50%.”

The National Institutes of Health funded the study. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

A new classification tool helped guide the treatment of bacteremic patients while clinicians awaited antibiotic resistance results, investigators reported.

The clinical decision tree had a positive predictive value of 91% and a negative predictive value of 92% for determining whether certain gram-negative infections produced extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL), Catherine Goodman, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and her associates wrote online in Clinical Infectious Diseases. “These predictions may assist empiric treatment decisions in order to optimize clinical outcomes while reducing administration of overly broad antibiotic agents that can select for further resistance emergence,” they added.

Bacteria that produce ESBL can hydrolyze all broad-spectrum beta-lactam antibiotics except carbapenems. Rapid tests for beta-lactamase genes can shorten the lag time between gram-stain identification and antimicrobial resistance results, but are cost prohibitive for most clinical laboratories and often do not assess ESBL gene groups, the researchers said. To find a way to predict which infections are characterized by ESBL production, they studied adults hospitalized at Johns Hopkins from October 2008 to March 2015 with bloodstream isolates of Klebsiella pneumoniae (40% of patients), Klebsiella oxytoca (4% of patients), and Escherichia coli (56% of patients). Most bacteremias began as urinary tract infections (34% of cases), followed by intra-abdominal infections (24%), catheter-related infections (16%), and biliary infections (14%) (Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Jul 26. doi:10.1093/cid/ciw425).

A total of 194 patients (15%) had bacteremias that produced ESBL, according to the investigators. Using a technique called binary recursive partitioning, they compared these patients with ESBL-negative patients to create a clinical decision tree based on five yes-or-no questions. The tree first asked if the patient had been colonized or infected with ESBL-producing bacteria within 6 months, and if so, whether the patient currently had an indwelling catheter. Patients meeting both criteria had a 92% chance of being ESBL positive. Patients with a recent history of ESBL but no catheter had an 81% chance of being ESBL positive if they were at least 43 years old, but a 75% chance of being ESBL negative if they were under age 43 years.

Among patients with no recent history of ESBL, the decision tree asked about hospitalization in a country with a high ESBL burden and antibiotic therapy during the past 6 months. Patients responding “yes” to both questions had a 100% chance of being ESBL positive. Patients with only the geographic risk factor had a 63% chance of being ESBL negative, and patients with neither risk factor had a 93% chance of being ESBL negative.

The decision tree detected only half of ESBL cases because there was a subgroup with no recent ESBL history or geographic exposure, the investigators noted. “The poor predictive nature of health care–associated variables within this patient subset may suggest a high proportion of community-acquired ESBL infections. Indeed, although risk factors for ESBLs have traditionally focused on the health care setting, increasing reports describe the community as an important ESBL reservoir,” they added. Nonetheless, of 194 patients with ESBL bacteremia, 35% received empiric carbapenem treatment within 6 hours after identification of the bacterial genus and species, the investigators emphasized. “Utilization of the decision tree would have increased ESBL case detection during the empiric treatment window by approximately 50%.”

The National Institutes of Health funded the study. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

Background Reproductive-age women who are undergoing cancer treatment are at risk for heavy menstrual bleeding, unintended pregnancy, and have a contraindication to estrogen-containing products. The incidence of vaginal bleeding and contraception use is not known.

Objective To describe clinical practices regarding menstrual suppression, estimate the incidence of vaginal bleeding complaints, and investigate contraceptive counseling and provision in women undergoing chemotherapy.

Methods We performed a chart review using ICD-9 codes to identify women aged 14-40 years who received chemotherapy at our institution during July 2008-June 2013. Electronic medical records were examined for menstrual suppression therapy, contraception counseling, and abnormal vaginal bleeding.

Results We identified 137 women for this study. 24 (18%) received prophylactic menstrual suppression counseling, of whom 17 (71%) initiated treatment, primarily with combined oral contraceptives, all prescribed by hematologist-oncologists. During the first 6 months of chemotherapy, 36 women (26%) complained of abnormal vaginal bleeding, including 10 women who were on prophylactic treatment. 19 women noted moderate to severe bleeding. 11 (12%) women received contraceptive counseling before chemotherapy, all from hematologist-oncologists; 86 women (63%) initiated chemotherapy without a documented contraceptive method.

Limitations Data were generated from billing codes, so all eligible women may not have been included.

Conclusions Reproductive-age women undergoing chemotherapy may not receive adequate contraception and menstrual suppression counseling. We encourage consulting gynecologists, especially family planning specialists, at the time of cancer diagnosis to support women with decisions about menstrual suppression and contraception.

Funding/sponsorship Society of Family Planning, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Lillian Mae Rapp Research Endowment

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

Background Reproductive-age women who are undergoing cancer treatment are at risk for heavy menstrual bleeding, unintended pregnancy, and have a contraindication to estrogen-containing products. The incidence of vaginal bleeding and contraception use is not known.

Objective To describe clinical practices regarding menstrual suppression, estimate the incidence of vaginal bleeding complaints, and investigate contraceptive counseling and provision in women undergoing chemotherapy.

Methods We performed a chart review using ICD-9 codes to identify women aged 14-40 years who received chemotherapy at our institution during July 2008-June 2013. Electronic medical records were examined for menstrual suppression therapy, contraception counseling, and abnormal vaginal bleeding.

Results We identified 137 women for this study. 24 (18%) received prophylactic menstrual suppression counseling, of whom 17 (71%) initiated treatment, primarily with combined oral contraceptives, all prescribed by hematologist-oncologists. During the first 6 months of chemotherapy, 36 women (26%) complained of abnormal vaginal bleeding, including 10 women who were on prophylactic treatment. 19 women noted moderate to severe bleeding. 11 (12%) women received contraceptive counseling before chemotherapy, all from hematologist-oncologists; 86 women (63%) initiated chemotherapy without a documented contraceptive method.

Limitations Data were generated from billing codes, so all eligible women may not have been included.

Conclusions Reproductive-age women undergoing chemotherapy may not receive adequate contraception and menstrual suppression counseling. We encourage consulting gynecologists, especially family planning specialists, at the time of cancer diagnosis to support women with decisions about menstrual suppression and contraception.

Funding/sponsorship Society of Family Planning, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Lillian Mae Rapp Research Endowment

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

Background Reproductive-age women who are undergoing cancer treatment are at risk for heavy menstrual bleeding, unintended pregnancy, and have a contraindication to estrogen-containing products. The incidence of vaginal bleeding and contraception use is not known.

Objective To describe clinical practices regarding menstrual suppression, estimate the incidence of vaginal bleeding complaints, and investigate contraceptive counseling and provision in women undergoing chemotherapy.

Methods We performed a chart review using ICD-9 codes to identify women aged 14-40 years who received chemotherapy at our institution during July 2008-June 2013. Electronic medical records were examined for menstrual suppression therapy, contraception counseling, and abnormal vaginal bleeding.

Results We identified 137 women for this study. 24 (18%) received prophylactic menstrual suppression counseling, of whom 17 (71%) initiated treatment, primarily with combined oral contraceptives, all prescribed by hematologist-oncologists. During the first 6 months of chemotherapy, 36 women (26%) complained of abnormal vaginal bleeding, including 10 women who were on prophylactic treatment. 19 women noted moderate to severe bleeding. 11 (12%) women received contraceptive counseling before chemotherapy, all from hematologist-oncologists; 86 women (63%) initiated chemotherapy without a documented contraceptive method.

Limitations Data were generated from billing codes, so all eligible women may not have been included.

Conclusions Reproductive-age women undergoing chemotherapy may not receive adequate contraception and menstrual suppression counseling. We encourage consulting gynecologists, especially family planning specialists, at the time of cancer diagnosis to support women with decisions about menstrual suppression and contraception.

Funding/sponsorship Society of Family Planning, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Lillian Mae Rapp Research Endowment

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

The first dose of rotavirus vaccine was again linked to a small, short-term increase in the risk of hospitalization for intussusception, but the benefits of the vaccine exceed this risk, according to a report.

In absolute numbers, there were an estimated 7 to 26 more intussusception cases per year among U.S. children aged 8-11 weeks during the postvaccine era, compared with the prevaccine era, said Jacqueline E. Tate, PhD, of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and her associates.

©jarun011/Thinkstock

The increased risk did not extend to older children, which “is consistent with other U.S. studies,” the investigators said. “[Given] the magnitude of the declines in rotavirus disease compared with the small increased risk of intussusception, the public health benefits of rotavirus vaccination far exceed the increased risk of intussusception.”

Human rotavirus vaccines have been linked to rare events of intussusception since at least 1999, when Rotashield was withdrawn from the market for this reason. The next two rotavirus vaccines to receive Food and Drug Administration approval, RotaTeq and Rotarix, were not linked to intussusception in large trials or early postmarketing studies, but were estimated to cause 1-5 excess cases of intussusception per 100,000 population in more recent studies. Furthermore, a prior analysis of U.S. hospital discharge data found a small increase in the risk of intussusception hospitalization among 8- to 11-week-olds between 2007 to 2009, compared with baseline data from the prevaccine era, the investigators noted (Pediatrics. 2016 Aug 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1082).

To build on that analysis, they calculated rates of intussusception between 2000 and 2013 overall and among recommended age windows for rotavirus vaccination, which are 6-14 weeks for the first dose, 15-24 weeks for the second dose, and 25-34 weeks for the third dose. For consistency, they also looked at hospitalization rates among children aged 8-11 weeks.

The investigators identified 15,231 intussusception hospitalizations among children under 1 year of age during the study from 2000-2013. There were no overall trends in intussusception hospitalizations for all children under 1 year of age or subgroups of children aged 15-24 weeks or 25-34 weeks. Among children aged 8-11 weeks, intussusception hospitalization rates did rise significantly during the postvaccine era, compared with the prevaccine era for all years except 2011 and 2013. Excluding those two years, annual rates of intussusception hospitalizations among 8- to 11-week-olds were 46%-101% higher (16.7 to 22.9 hospitalizations per 100,000 population) during the postvaccine era than during the prevaccine era (11.4 hospitalizations per 100,000 population).

These results are “consistent with other U.S. studies that have been able to associate an increased risk of intussusception in the first week after the first dose of vaccine,” the researchers concluded. The advent of rotavirus vaccination prevented more than 176,000 hospitalizations, 242,000 emergency department visits, and 1.1 million outpatient visits from 2007 to 2011 (JAMA. 2015;313(22):2282-4), they noted.

The investigators reported no external funding sources and had no disclosures.

The first dose of rotavirus vaccine was again linked to a small, short-term increase in the risk of hospitalization for intussusception, but the benefits of the vaccine exceed this risk, according to a report.

In absolute numbers, there were an estimated 7 to 26 more intussusception cases per year among U.S. children aged 8-11 weeks during the postvaccine era, compared with the prevaccine era, said Jacqueline E. Tate, PhD, of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and her associates.

©jarun011/Thinkstock

The increased risk did not extend to older children, which “is consistent with other U.S. studies,” the investigators said. “[Given] the magnitude of the declines in rotavirus disease compared with the small increased risk of intussusception, the public health benefits of rotavirus vaccination far exceed the increased risk of intussusception.”

Human rotavirus vaccines have been linked to rare events of intussusception since at least 1999, when Rotashield was withdrawn from the market for this reason. The next two rotavirus vaccines to receive Food and Drug Administration approval, RotaTeq and Rotarix, were not linked to intussusception in large trials or early postmarketing studies, but were estimated to cause 1-5 excess cases of intussusception per 100,000 population in more recent studies. Furthermore, a prior analysis of U.S. hospital discharge data found a small increase in the risk of intussusception hospitalization among 8- to 11-week-olds between 2007 to 2009, compared with baseline data from the prevaccine era, the investigators noted (Pediatrics. 2016 Aug 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1082).

To build on that analysis, they calculated rates of intussusception between 2000 and 2013 overall and among recommended age windows for rotavirus vaccination, which are 6-14 weeks for the first dose, 15-24 weeks for the second dose, and 25-34 weeks for the third dose. For consistency, they also looked at hospitalization rates among children aged 8-11 weeks.

The investigators identified 15,231 intussusception hospitalizations among children under 1 year of age during the study from 2000-2013. There were no overall trends in intussusception hospitalizations for all children under 1 year of age or subgroups of children aged 15-24 weeks or 25-34 weeks. Among children aged 8-11 weeks, intussusception hospitalization rates did rise significantly during the postvaccine era, compared with the prevaccine era for all years except 2011 and 2013. Excluding those two years, annual rates of intussusception hospitalizations among 8- to 11-week-olds were 46%-101% higher (16.7 to 22.9 hospitalizations per 100,000 population) during the postvaccine era than during the prevaccine era (11.4 hospitalizations per 100,000 population).

These results are “consistent with other U.S. studies that have been able to associate an increased risk of intussusception in the first week after the first dose of vaccine,” the researchers concluded. The advent of rotavirus vaccination prevented more than 176,000 hospitalizations, 242,000 emergency department visits, and 1.1 million outpatient visits from 2007 to 2011 (JAMA. 2015;313(22):2282-4), they noted.

The investigators reported no external funding sources and had no disclosures.

The first dose of rotavirus vaccine was again linked to a small, short-term increase in the risk of hospitalization for intussusception, but the benefits of the vaccine exceed this risk, according to a report.

In absolute numbers, there were an estimated 7 to 26 more intussusception cases per year among U.S. children aged 8-11 weeks during the postvaccine era, compared with the prevaccine era, said Jacqueline E. Tate, PhD, of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and her associates.

©jarun011/Thinkstock

The increased risk did not extend to older children, which “is consistent with other U.S. studies,” the investigators said. “[Given] the magnitude of the declines in rotavirus disease compared with the small increased risk of intussusception, the public health benefits of rotavirus vaccination far exceed the increased risk of intussusception.”

Human rotavirus vaccines have been linked to rare events of intussusception since at least 1999, when Rotashield was withdrawn from the market for this reason. The next two rotavirus vaccines to receive Food and Drug Administration approval, RotaTeq and Rotarix, were not linked to intussusception in large trials or early postmarketing studies, but were estimated to cause 1-5 excess cases of intussusception per 100,000 population in more recent studies. Furthermore, a prior analysis of U.S. hospital discharge data found a small increase in the risk of intussusception hospitalization among 8- to 11-week-olds between 2007 to 2009, compared with baseline data from the prevaccine era, the investigators noted (Pediatrics. 2016 Aug 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1082).

To build on that analysis, they calculated rates of intussusception between 2000 and 2013 overall and among recommended age windows for rotavirus vaccination, which are 6-14 weeks for the first dose, 15-24 weeks for the second dose, and 25-34 weeks for the third dose. For consistency, they also looked at hospitalization rates among children aged 8-11 weeks.

The investigators identified 15,231 intussusception hospitalizations among children under 1 year of age during the study from 2000-2013. There were no overall trends in intussusception hospitalizations for all children under 1 year of age or subgroups of children aged 15-24 weeks or 25-34 weeks. Among children aged 8-11 weeks, intussusception hospitalization rates did rise significantly during the postvaccine era, compared with the prevaccine era for all years except 2011 and 2013. Excluding those two years, annual rates of intussusception hospitalizations among 8- to 11-week-olds were 46%-101% higher (16.7 to 22.9 hospitalizations per 100,000 population) during the postvaccine era than during the prevaccine era (11.4 hospitalizations per 100,000 population).

These results are “consistent with other U.S. studies that have been able to associate an increased risk of intussusception in the first week after the first dose of vaccine,” the researchers concluded. The advent of rotavirus vaccination prevented more than 176,000 hospitalizations, 242,000 emergency department visits, and 1.1 million outpatient visits from 2007 to 2011 (JAMA. 2015;313(22):2282-4), they noted.

The investigators reported no external funding sources and had no disclosures.

At the summer meetings of the American Academy of Dermatology, AAD President Abel Torres screened a video of members responding to the question, “What keeps you up at night?” A recurring refrain in many of their responses was, “loss of autonomy.”

Many physicians feel they are losing autonomy. No doubt they are right. But physicians are not alone in their loss.

A young academic friend of mine had a similar lament. “Some assistant dean sent me an email ordering me to grade my students in a way that made no sense,” he said. “I challenged him to explain why. He answered that my school was following the guidelines of some organization I’d never heard of.”

“Academics used to be autonomous,” he said. “No more.”

Another professor friend decided to retire. “Forty years in the department,” he said, “10 as chair. Now a junior administrator tells me that I have to spend more hours on campus, even though I don’t have anything useful to do when I’m there. She said there are new rules for more academic efficiency.”

New administrators. Guidelines. Efficiency. Experienced hands dropping out or retiring out of frustration. Any of these sound familiar?

Teachers also complain to me about their loss of autonomy. “I used to be able to use judgment,” said one. “I knew what worked for a specific student. Now I just teach to the standardized test.

“For every one of my 23 kindergartners, I spent 1 hour filling out an iPad questionnaire on reading readiness. I’ve had it.”

“What will you do instead?” I asked him.

“Something with dogs,” he said.

And so it goes. Accountants and attorneys complain about heavy reporting regulations, with new ones added each year. Judges in Wisconsin make sentencing decisions using proprietary algorithms that no one outside the company that sells the algorithms has validated. Financial advisers have clients sign boilerplate statements documenting that they accept a certain level of risk. These clients may or may not understand what “level of risk” really implies, but either way they must sign a form, and the form must be filed. If you didn’t document it, you didn’t do it. If you documented it, you did it, even though you may not have really done anything meaningful.

An internist told me how things are in her new dispensation.

“They allow 15 minutes for a physical,” she said, “which is not enough anyway. But I also have to check off boxes for the EMR that add nothing to patient care. Last year we had to start asking about gender status. ‘What was your gender assignment at birth?’ ‘What is it now?’ We have to ask that every year – and click the box that says we did it.

“Several docs in our group retired. Another bunch went concierge. They couldn’t deal with it anymore.”

Metrics. Algorithms. Higher authorities who tell professionals what to do, how to do it, how to record it, business quants with scant understanding of what professionals actually profess. All so familiar and tiresome. It’s everywhere, and it’s bigger than any of us.

Loss of autonomy by professionals across the board reflects a changed understanding by society at large of what quality service is and how it should be judged. Numbers are in. Personal judgment – in our case, clinical judgment – is out. Since judgment can’t be measured, it cannot be trusted.

To a certain extent, autonomy is an illusion. We can do what we want as long as powers larger than we are – natural, social, political – let us do it. Those powers may lie dormant for a while, but they’re always there, and always have been. When they wake up and change the rules of the game, everyone has to adapt. New burdens in the practice of medicine are just one instance of a much broader trend.

Our professional organizations know this well. They are hard at work giving the authorities, government, and insurance administrators what they demand: data showing that what we do is useful, in the quantitative terms the authorities will accept.

To the extent that they succeed, we will be able to do some of what we want to do. Young people entering the medical field will expect nothing more. Some of their older colleagues will be satisfied that they are autonomous enough. The rest will have to find something else to do.

Dr. Rockoff practices dermatology in Brookline, Mass. He is on the clinical faculty at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, and has taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years.

At the summer meetings of the American Academy of Dermatology, AAD President Abel Torres screened a video of members responding to the question, “What keeps you up at night?” A recurring refrain in many of their responses was, “loss of autonomy.”

Many physicians feel they are losing autonomy. No doubt they are right. But physicians are not alone in their loss.

A young academic friend of mine had a similar lament. “Some assistant dean sent me an email ordering me to grade my students in a way that made no sense,” he said. “I challenged him to explain why. He answered that my school was following the guidelines of some organization I’d never heard of.”

“Academics used to be autonomous,” he said. “No more.”

Another professor friend decided to retire. “Forty years in the department,” he said, “10 as chair. Now a junior administrator tells me that I have to spend more hours on campus, even though I don’t have anything useful to do when I’m there. She said there are new rules for more academic efficiency.”

New administrators. Guidelines. Efficiency. Experienced hands dropping out or retiring out of frustration. Any of these sound familiar?

Teachers also complain to me about their loss of autonomy. “I used to be able to use judgment,” said one. “I knew what worked for a specific student. Now I just teach to the standardized test.

“For every one of my 23 kindergartners, I spent 1 hour filling out an iPad questionnaire on reading readiness. I’ve had it.”

“What will you do instead?” I asked him.

“Something with dogs,” he said.

And so it goes. Accountants and attorneys complain about heavy reporting regulations, with new ones added each year. Judges in Wisconsin make sentencing decisions using proprietary algorithms that no one outside the company that sells the algorithms has validated. Financial advisers have clients sign boilerplate statements documenting that they accept a certain level of risk. These clients may or may not understand what “level of risk” really implies, but either way they must sign a form, and the form must be filed. If you didn’t document it, you didn’t do it. If you documented it, you did it, even though you may not have really done anything meaningful.

An internist told me how things are in her new dispensation.

“They allow 15 minutes for a physical,” she said, “which is not enough anyway. But I also have to check off boxes for the EMR that add nothing to patient care. Last year we had to start asking about gender status. ‘What was your gender assignment at birth?’ ‘What is it now?’ We have to ask that every year – and click the box that says we did it.

“Several docs in our group retired. Another bunch went concierge. They couldn’t deal with it anymore.”

Metrics. Algorithms. Higher authorities who tell professionals what to do, how to do it, how to record it, business quants with scant understanding of what professionals actually profess. All so familiar and tiresome. It’s everywhere, and it’s bigger than any of us.

Loss of autonomy by professionals across the board reflects a changed understanding by society at large of what quality service is and how it should be judged. Numbers are in. Personal judgment – in our case, clinical judgment – is out. Since judgment can’t be measured, it cannot be trusted.

To a certain extent, autonomy is an illusion. We can do what we want as long as powers larger than we are – natural, social, political – let us do it. Those powers may lie dormant for a while, but they’re always there, and always have been. When they wake up and change the rules of the game, everyone has to adapt. New burdens in the practice of medicine are just one instance of a much broader trend.

Our professional organizations know this well. They are hard at work giving the authorities, government, and insurance administrators what they demand: data showing that what we do is useful, in the quantitative terms the authorities will accept.

To the extent that they succeed, we will be able to do some of what we want to do. Young people entering the medical field will expect nothing more. Some of their older colleagues will be satisfied that they are autonomous enough. The rest will have to find something else to do.

Dr. Rockoff practices dermatology in Brookline, Mass. He is on the clinical faculty at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, and has taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years.

At the summer meetings of the American Academy of Dermatology, AAD President Abel Torres screened a video of members responding to the question, “What keeps you up at night?” A recurring refrain in many of their responses was, “loss of autonomy.”

Many physicians feel they are losing autonomy. No doubt they are right. But physicians are not alone in their loss.

A young academic friend of mine had a similar lament. “Some assistant dean sent me an email ordering me to grade my students in a way that made no sense,” he said. “I challenged him to explain why. He answered that my school was following the guidelines of some organization I’d never heard of.”

“Academics used to be autonomous,” he said. “No more.”

Another professor friend decided to retire. “Forty years in the department,” he said, “10 as chair. Now a junior administrator tells me that I have to spend more hours on campus, even though I don’t have anything useful to do when I’m there. She said there are new rules for more academic efficiency.”

New administrators. Guidelines. Efficiency. Experienced hands dropping out or retiring out of frustration. Any of these sound familiar?

Teachers also complain to me about their loss of autonomy. “I used to be able to use judgment,” said one. “I knew what worked for a specific student. Now I just teach to the standardized test.

“For every one of my 23 kindergartners, I spent 1 hour filling out an iPad questionnaire on reading readiness. I’ve had it.”

“What will you do instead?” I asked him.

“Something with dogs,” he said.

And so it goes. Accountants and attorneys complain about heavy reporting regulations, with new ones added each year. Judges in Wisconsin make sentencing decisions using proprietary algorithms that no one outside the company that sells the algorithms has validated. Financial advisers have clients sign boilerplate statements documenting that they accept a certain level of risk. These clients may or may not understand what “level of risk” really implies, but either way they must sign a form, and the form must be filed. If you didn’t document it, you didn’t do it. If you documented it, you did it, even though you may not have really done anything meaningful.

An internist told me how things are in her new dispensation.

“They allow 15 minutes for a physical,” she said, “which is not enough anyway. But I also have to check off boxes for the EMR that add nothing to patient care. Last year we had to start asking about gender status. ‘What was your gender assignment at birth?’ ‘What is it now?’ We have to ask that every year – and click the box that says we did it.

“Several docs in our group retired. Another bunch went concierge. They couldn’t deal with it anymore.”

Metrics. Algorithms. Higher authorities who tell professionals what to do, how to do it, how to record it, business quants with scant understanding of what professionals actually profess. All so familiar and tiresome. It’s everywhere, and it’s bigger than any of us.

Loss of autonomy by professionals across the board reflects a changed understanding by society at large of what quality service is and how it should be judged. Numbers are in. Personal judgment – in our case, clinical judgment – is out. Since judgment can’t be measured, it cannot be trusted.

To a certain extent, autonomy is an illusion. We can do what we want as long as powers larger than we are – natural, social, political – let us do it. Those powers may lie dormant for a while, but they’re always there, and always have been. When they wake up and change the rules of the game, everyone has to adapt. New burdens in the practice of medicine are just one instance of a much broader trend.

Our professional organizations know this well. They are hard at work giving the authorities, government, and insurance administrators what they demand: data showing that what we do is useful, in the quantitative terms the authorities will accept.

To the extent that they succeed, we will be able to do some of what we want to do. Young people entering the medical field will expect nothing more. Some of their older colleagues will be satisfied that they are autonomous enough. The rest will have to find something else to do.

Dr. Rockoff practices dermatology in Brookline, Mass. He is on the clinical faculty at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, and has taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years.

Fluorouracil or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is an effective cytotoxic drug that is incorporated into various chemotherapeutic regimens for the treatment of numerous tumor types, but its clinical utility is limited by its narrow therapeutic index and the risk of overdose and serious toxic effects. Until recently, these outcomes were managed with supportive care, but the approval of uridine triacetate provides an antidote to reverse 5-FU-associated toxicity, to prevent death and potentially allow some patients to resume chemotherapy.

Fluorouracil or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is an effective cytotoxic drug that is incorporated into various chemotherapeutic regimens for the treatment of numerous tumor types, but its clinical utility is limited by its narrow therapeutic index and the risk of overdose and serious toxic effects. Until recently, these outcomes were managed with supportive care, but the approval of uridine triacetate provides an antidote to reverse 5-FU-associated toxicity, to prevent death and potentially allow some patients to resume chemotherapy.

Fluorouracil or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is an effective cytotoxic drug that is incorporated into various chemotherapeutic regimens for the treatment of numerous tumor types, but its clinical utility is limited by its narrow therapeutic index and the risk of overdose and serious toxic effects. Until recently, these outcomes were managed with supportive care, but the approval of uridine triacetate provides an antidote to reverse 5-FU-associated toxicity, to prevent death and potentially allow some patients to resume chemotherapy.

Fewer women aged 20-44 years are using sterilization as their primary method of contraception, despite no-cost coverage of the procedure under the Affordable Care Act.

Sterilization rates in 2011-2013 for women in this age group was 25%, down from 27% in 2002, according to a new report from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Rates declined across income groups, dropping from 41% in 2002 to 37% in 2011-2013 for women whose incomes were up to 149% of the federal poverty level (FPL). For women with incomes within 150%-299% of the FPL, the rate declined from 33% to 28%, and for those at 300% or more of the FPL, the rate declined from 20% to 18%, according to the report.

©Karen Roach/Fotolia

While expanded coverage under the ACA may, in the long run, lead to greater use of sterilization by women, “it remains to be seen whether the growing availability of [long-acting reversible contraception] will offset this as IUDs and implants serve as semi-permanent substitutes for sterilization,” the Kaiser researchers wrote.

From 2011 to 2013, about 5% of men aged 15-44 years reported undergoing a vasectomy, according to Kaiser. The ACA does not require health plans to cover sterilization for men, but two states – Vermont and Maryland – have passed laws requiring coverage within their borders in the future.

Male sterilization rates increased with age (1% of those aged 15-34 years, compared with 13% of those aged 35-44 years), income (3% for those below 200% of the FPL, 5% for those 200%-399%, and 10% for those above 400%), and education (3% of those with up to a high school diploma/GED, 5% of those with some college, and 13% of those with at least a 4-year college degree). Comparative changes in male sterilization rates were not provided.

[email protected]

Fewer women aged 20-44 years are using sterilization as their primary method of contraception, despite no-cost coverage of the procedure under the Affordable Care Act.

Sterilization rates in 2011-2013 for women in this age group was 25%, down from 27% in 2002, according to a new report from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Rates declined across income groups, dropping from 41% in 2002 to 37% in 2011-2013 for women whose incomes were up to 149% of the federal poverty level (FPL). For women with incomes within 150%-299% of the FPL, the rate declined from 33% to 28%, and for those at 300% or more of the FPL, the rate declined from 20% to 18%, according to the report.

©Karen Roach/Fotolia

While expanded coverage under the ACA may, in the long run, lead to greater use of sterilization by women, “it remains to be seen whether the growing availability of [long-acting reversible contraception] will offset this as IUDs and implants serve as semi-permanent substitutes for sterilization,” the Kaiser researchers wrote.

From 2011 to 2013, about 5% of men aged 15-44 years reported undergoing a vasectomy, according to Kaiser. The ACA does not require health plans to cover sterilization for men, but two states – Vermont and Maryland – have passed laws requiring coverage within their borders in the future.

Male sterilization rates increased with age (1% of those aged 15-34 years, compared with 13% of those aged 35-44 years), income (3% for those below 200% of the FPL, 5% for those 200%-399%, and 10% for those above 400%), and education (3% of those with up to a high school diploma/GED, 5% of those with some college, and 13% of those with at least a 4-year college degree). Comparative changes in male sterilization rates were not provided.

[email protected]

Fewer women aged 20-44 years are using sterilization as their primary method of contraception, despite no-cost coverage of the procedure under the Affordable Care Act.

Sterilization rates in 2011-2013 for women in this age group was 25%, down from 27% in 2002, according to a new report from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Rates declined across income groups, dropping from 41% in 2002 to 37% in 2011-2013 for women whose incomes were up to 149% of the federal poverty level (FPL). For women with incomes within 150%-299% of the FPL, the rate declined from 33% to 28%, and for those at 300% or more of the FPL, the rate declined from 20% to 18%, according to the report.

©Karen Roach/Fotolia

While expanded coverage under the ACA may, in the long run, lead to greater use of sterilization by women, “it remains to be seen whether the growing availability of [long-acting reversible contraception] will offset this as IUDs and implants serve as semi-permanent substitutes for sterilization,” the Kaiser researchers wrote.

From 2011 to 2013, about 5% of men aged 15-44 years reported undergoing a vasectomy, according to Kaiser. The ACA does not require health plans to cover sterilization for men, but two states – Vermont and Maryland – have passed laws requiring coverage within their borders in the future.

Male sterilization rates increased with age (1% of those aged 15-34 years, compared with 13% of those aged 35-44 years), income (3% for those below 200% of the FPL, 5% for those 200%-399%, and 10% for those above 400%), and education (3% of those with up to a high school diploma/GED, 5% of those with some college, and 13% of those with at least a 4-year college degree). Comparative changes in male sterilization rates were not provided.

[email protected]